click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9
on television. today in a 58-40 cloture voted. they blocked chuck hagel being the sex -- secretary of defense. next the hour long debate on the nomination. they said they will not vote for cloture today, i think it's too bad. there's been more than enough time to read the additional speeches that have been coming in. the argument raced beyond that i know has do with the payment an equity fund that was received has been fully explained. as a highly reputable fund that senator hagel was an adviser to like many other reputable people. i think the continuation what amounts to filibuster is too bad when there's a secretary of defense who is leafing to go back to california. we need to have our new secretary of defense in place given the circumstances in this world. we have a budget crisis in this country, our scwesser is confronting us. that's sequester will have a damaging effect on the deference department, on the men and women in uniform. and on the programs, the equipment, the training that they need to be ready for any kind of contingency. so the delay in having a vote on cloture, to me is a
-level officers and enlisted that are so important to the leadership of our military and chuck hagel's leadership and commitment will be critical to that task. i have met with chuck hagel privately, i've asked him tough questions about iran and israel. i'm satisfied on those points that he will advise the president in according to with -- in accord with those policies but even more important i am struck by his passion, the intensity of his commitment to our men and women in uniform. his caring about them is indicated in so many ways. spontaneously and strongly in his testimony, as well as his private conversations. he will make sure that sexual assault in the military, the epidemic and scourge of rape and assault against men and women who serve and sacrifice for this country will be stopped, that there will be, in fact, zero tolerance not only in word but in deed. and his viewing, for example, of the documentary "invisible war," his understanding that this kind of misconduct is an outrage never to be even implicitly condoned and to be treated as a criminal offense, the most extreme kind of predat
that chuck hagel would bring to this position. first, chuck is acutely aware that even in an age of rapid technological advances, our military capability and effectiveness depend on the quality and the morale of the people who serve our nation in uniform as well as the families that support them. senator nunn continued, "chuck received two purple hearts in vietnam, and when he returned home, he continued to fight for veterans and for active duty military personnel. he knows that our people are our strongest assets." "second, chuck's spine chuck's n vietnam shaped his perspective. war for chuck is not a traction. i am confident that if confirmed he will ask the hard and smart questions before sending troops into battle." i this i that i misread that word. i think it was that war for chuck hagel is not "an abstraction." "chuck hagel knows that the united states has vital interests that are worth fighting ford and dyinfighting . he also knows that war should be a last resort, that our nation must effectively use all of our tools, not limit it only to our military to protect our important and
endorsed chuck hagel strongly and enthusiastically. men and women who served in both democratic and republican administrations. among them, bob gates, william cohen, madeleine albright, bill perry, thomas pickering. these are women who have -- men and women who devoted themselves to protecting the united states. they've done it with extraordinary energy and effectiveliness. in this list of our secretaries defense that will rank as the best we've ever had. they have absolute confidence that chuck hagel can and should do this job. you have in this list ambassadors who have handled the delicate, difficult issues involving international diplomacy. you have several ambassadors who have been ambassadors to the state of israel who strongly support senator hagel. all these individuals know him, they know perhaps as well if not better than many of my colleagues and myself the threats, the dangers and opportunities that face this country and they are strongly supporting chuck hagel. in fact, they have concluded, in a letter, that he is uniquely qualified to meet the challenges facing the
, the committee of jurisdiction, the armed services committee, they have extensive information on chuck hagel. they have as much information that's available on the benghazi situation, testimony from the administrative officials, from multiple committees, from an independent review board, secretary clinton testified, secretary panetta, who is going to be leaving his job in less than two hours, chairman of the joint chiefs martin dempsey, and others have already testified regarding the athat can claimed four -- the attack that claimed four american lives. chuck hagel had nothing to do with the attack in benghazi. the administration hasn't been forthcoming is outlandish. there are serious consequences to this delay. consequences that are occurring right now. the president is making some important decisions about afghanistan. he announced to the world just a day or two ago that 34,000 troops will be coming home during the next year from afghanistan. we're negotiating with the afghan government regarding how we'll support them beyond 2014. negotiations are going on right now. i heard today from f
nothing about the personal compensation chuck hagel received in 2008, 2009 or 2010. we do not know, for example, if he receives compensation for giving paid speeches at extreme for radical groups. given the two letters he received, it is a fair inference to assume that he and those handling his nomination assembled that information, assembled his compensation, and the only reasonable inference i think is when they a symbol that there was something in there that they did not want to make public. it may be that he spoke at radical or extreme groups are anti-israel groups and accepted financial compensation. we don't know. it may be that he received extraordinary payments from defense contractors, which i would suggest as a matter of conflict of interest. this committee and the senate would be interested in. we don't know what it was because he simply said no. i will not tell you the compensatcompensat ion i personally have received. and i will point out on this question, i agree with senator harry reid. when it came to the nomination of john bold, and in a of members of this body ask
postcloture time be yielded back and the senate proceed to vote on the nomination of chuck hagel without intervening action or debate, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table with no intervening action or debate, that no further motion be in order, president obama be immediately notified of the senate's action, and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. under the previous order, the senate stands in recess until the senate finance committeel approved the name of jack lew of treasury secretary. iowa senator chuck grassley voted against the nomination, citing lew's role in citigroup during the bailout. here is what some of what senator grassley had to say. >> finally, mr. lew, i'm concerned about the attitude of this administration, supporters criticize the senate usually anonymously, exercising basic due diligence regarding this nominee. they don't like anyone questioning them and they don't like answering questions. despite their tactics we must continue to perform their senate vital
much, mr. chairman, and i will be brief as i can possibly be here. on december 2012, senator chuck hagel, the no , ma'am tee to be the secretary of defense sat for an interview with financial times, and when asked about how it's going, secretary pa panetts comments would be disastrous to national defense, senator hagel replied as follows, "the defense department in many ways is bloated. the defense department got everything it wanted the last ten years and more. we've taken priorities, dollars, programs, taken policies out of the state department out of a number of other departments and put them over in defense. the abuse and waste and the fraud is astoppedding. i think the pentagon needs to be paired down. we need the pentagon to look at their own priorities." we are pressed for time so i would, if i could, have the joint chiefs go down the line, quickly, if you can answer with yes or no, whether you agree with the general characterization that the senator made. that'd be great. [laughter] >> let me try it. it's a good question. it's a fair question. i don't -- i can't speak for
. on december of 2012, senator chuck hagel was nominee to become the secretary of defense. when he was asked about the outgoing secretary leon panetta's comments about budget sequestration that would be disastrous to national defense, the senator replied as follows. the defense department, i think in many ways, has been bloated. the defense department has gotten everything it has wanted. the last 10 years and more. we have taken priorities, dollars, programs, policies out of the state department. and another of other departments and put them in defense. the abuse and waste and fraud is astounding. .. with him or her >> or something like that. it was obvious that in some places had accumulated over the decades that is why secretary gates started the efficiency initiative that i was a part of to improve performance and requisition system. in parallel, we had absorbed for madrid $87 billion budget cut in a way wear we said we could still accomplish the mission of the nation speaking to the fact we could do what the country needed with less. but today we cannot do that strategy. so we have accom
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9